[Grammar] that are

[ShirleyLing]

People that are unemployed may need long-term help.

Does dropping "that are" make the sentence ungrammatical or change its meaning?

 

[5jj]

It's easier to read with 'that/who are' not dropped. If you want to drop it, I'd prefer, "Unemployed people may need long-term help".

 

[konungursvia]

It's easier to read with 'that/who are' not dropped. If you want to drop it, I'd prefer, "Unemployed people may need long-term help".

With certainty.

 

[ShirleyLing]

So, "People unemployed may need long-term help." is a complete, grammatical sentence?

 

[5jj]

So, "People unemployed may need long-term help." is a complete, grammatical sentence?

It is not ungrammatical.

 

[konungursvia]

I would say no, because most native speakers would see it as malformed, as is often the case in rapid speech. Not completely wrong, but definitely awkward or strange.

 

[5jj]

I would say no, because most native speakers would see it as malformed, as is often the case in rapid speech. Not completely wrong, but definitely awkward or strange.

More clearly put than my post #5, which was meant to imply a similar thought, but did so too opaquely.

 

[Raymott]

Does dropping "that are" make the sentence ungrammatical or change its meaning?

A simple adjective like "unemployed" causes a problem, but the following sentences are fine:
"People unemployed through ill-health may need long-term help."
"People unemployed because of disability may need long-term help."

Your original sentence isn't ungrammatical, but it's not colloquial. I think most English teachers would mark it "wrong".